1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Could the 1611 KJV have been better?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Nov 2, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 6 of 6
  1. mcdirector

    mcdirector Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    11
    Then we will have to agree to disagree because I do not see it as an attack but rather close examination. Nor do I see the KJV as the one version that all should be measured against. I believe that there are several versions of equal merit.
     
    #101 mcdirector, Nov 25, 2006
  2. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There's simply no Scriptural support, even in the KJV, to support it's "being the best". Seeing as how it was made by men, same as the others were, it's in the same boat. And yes, it coulda been better as Logos has pointed out so far.

    And other versions, old & new, DO stand up beside it quite well. In fact, the newer ones are a little better because they're in OUR language.
     
    #102 robycop3, Nov 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2006
  3. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why do you insist on scriptural support for an area about which the Scripture is silent? In the absence of scriptural support, you have to look at the myriad of other support.
     
    #103 Pastor_Bob, Nov 25, 2006
  4. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As do I, however, if you limit the discussion to English versions, I believe the KJV is the litmus test for all subsequent English versions.
     
    #104 Pastor_Bob, Nov 25, 2006
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are entitled to your opinion, but you have not proven that your opinion is correct. A booklet that provides valid evidence that shows that the 1611 edition could have been better is not an attack on the KJV. Do you claim that the KJV translators stated endeavor to make the earlier English Bibles better was an attack on Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, and Bishops' Bibles and their translators? Are you claiming that the later editors of KJV editions such as Benjamin Blayney were attacking the KJV and its translators when they claimed to correct errors in KJV editions and attempted to make the KJV better? Later editors of KJV edition evidently agreed with the observation that the 1611 edition could have been better since they made a number of changes or corrections in 1611 renderings that the KJV translators kept from the Bishops' Bible. In a good number of those cases, the later editors chose a rendering in agreement with the rendering already available in the 1560 Geneva Bible. Later editors also corrected at least one of the 14 changes said to have been made in the 1611 edition by Archbishop Bancroft and another prelate. It only takes one example of a rendering in the 1611 edition of the KJV that could have been better to confirm the observation.

    According to a consistent application of your opinion, is any attempt to make a better translation an attack on all earlier translations?
     
    #105 Logos1560, Nov 25, 2006
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why should the KJV be considered the litmus test for all subsequent English versions if it is also not the litmus test for translations into other languages? Why should any translation be considered the litmus test for other translations instead of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages be considered the correct litmus test for all translations including the KJV?

    The opinion or argument that the 1611 edition of the KJV could not have been better seems to imply that the 1611 edition was 100% perfect and was perhaps equal in authority to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

    When the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are considered the greater authority, standard, and litmus test for all translations, it becomes possible to see the evidence that indicates that the 1611 edition of the KJV could have been better.
     
    #106 Logos1560, Nov 25, 2006
  7. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I do not recall the translators publishing a book listing reasons why the earlier English versions could have been better. The book I referenced is not attempting to make the KJV a better translation; it is attempting to discredit the KJV.
     
    #107 Pastor_Bob, Nov 25, 2006
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In his introduction to his new 1784 translation of Jeremiah, Benjamin Blayney [trusted editor of the 1769 Oxford KJV edition] maintained that “our present Version in common use” [the KJV] “is still far from being so perfect as it might and should be” (p. xiv-xv). In this same introduction, Blayney recommended: “Let the work of purifying and reforming what is amiss in the present Edition of our Bible be fairly and honestly set about, and with that moderation and soberness of mind which the gravity of the subject requires” (pp. xviii-xix).
     
    #108 Logos1560, Nov 25, 2006
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deacon jd: //You see I have something that all of you
    who carry MV bibles don't have and that is a perfect
    trust that God has provided me with his Holy
    innerrant Word without having to have every
    bible man ever made, an education in Hebrew and Greek,
    and a whole library full of books
    to help me understand my Bible.//

    Sorry, Brother Deacon jd, but you err on so many levels.
    1. I do have a library full of books, but they are ALL BIBLES.
    (I even have three different KJVs)
    2. I am not educated in Hebrew nor Greek
    yet the Holy Spirit gives me additional insights
    as my life progresses (and I mature) from various
    translations/versions of the Bible. Especialy significant
    to me is the Bibles translated into the English that
    I used for the past 30 years to earn a retirement.
    3. Unlike your claim, I am a MV carrier who has "a perfect
    trust that God has provided me with his Holy
    innerrant Word    ". I just don't limit God to one and only
    one book. (I even have three different KJVs! )
    4. I only have about 30 Bibles only 3 of which I use
    on a daily basis:

    a. the KJV1611 Edition
    b. the KJV1769 Edition
    c. the HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003)

    The KJV1611 Edition could have been better.
    In fact, it was rewritten in 1762 & 1769 and
    made the better by it.
     
    #109 Ed Edwards, Nov 25, 2006
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, the later editions of the KJV confirm the observation that the 1611 edition of the KJV could have been better. If the 1611 edition of the KJV could not have been better, why were 2,000 changes introduced into its text? A good number of those renderings that later editors changed were the responsibility of the KJV translators themselves who had kept them from the Bishops' Bible.
     
    #110 Logos1560, Nov 25, 2006
  11. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Sister! Why would anyone want to use a mere translation as the litmus test against which all other Bible versions are measured when we have many manuscripts in the original languages??? True, these manuscripts are not the original autographs, but then neither was the KJV translated from the original autographs.
     
    #111 Keith M, Nov 25, 2006
  12. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most DO, in fact, believe God provided them a perfect Englsih translation in one volume. :godisgood:

    To the Southern Baptists He 'provided' the HCSB; to the historian, he 'provided' the KJV (Although it apparently took the human element several tries to "get it right", here.); to the dispensationalist, He 'provided' the Darby; to the NCC crowd, He 'provided' the RSV (Although they are still working on this one over 50 years, I believe. :BangHead: ); to the English speaking population of today, He 'provided' the ESV. So all have got one! :rolleyes:

    And all of 'em got it wrong! {sad} {tears}

    I got the 'real' one He 'provided', the NKJV! :thumbsup: {laugh} {laugh}

    Ed
     
    #112 EdSutton, Nov 25, 2006
  13. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    :thumbsup: :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
    #113 EdSutton, Nov 25, 2006
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Although I do doubt that it is really all that 'Humble', anyway - :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
    #114 EdSutton, Nov 25, 2006
  15. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I got it!! I know the answer to this one!! Ask me!! Ask ME!!", as the kid in school said to the teacher.

    It was the Holy Spirit!
    And the person was Titus!!
    :thumbsup: :tongue3: :laugh:

    Ed
     
    #115 EdSutton, Nov 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2006
  16. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "'traditional' Baptist distinctives" that confute 'the spiritual gifts' and 'the offices' in the Bible should die a quick and painful death. And the sooner we can have that funeral, the better the church will be, IMO.

    Ed
     
    #116 EdSutton, Nov 25, 2006
  17. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh- wasn't the question "Could the 1611 KJV have been better?"

    Or as Colonel Sanders responded to the question of "Why did the chicken cross the road?" -
    "Did I manage to miss one here?"

    Ed
     
    #117 EdSutton, Nov 25, 2006
  18. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All TRUE Christian doctrines are derived from Scripture. So, why do I demand Scriptural support for something I KNOW has none? To be sarcastic is why. Without Scriptural support, the premise cannot be correct. IT CANNOT BE A TRUE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. All the other "evidence" is opinion, imagination, and GUESSWORK at best.

    In another thread, I asked for any evidence for any One-Versionism whatsoever, discounting personal preferences & non-availability of more than one version. I'm sure you saw the responses...NONE.

    ALL One-Versionism is simply personal preference, without any merit to be otherwise true.
     
    #118 robycop3, Nov 26, 2006
  19. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very true, Cranston, very true. There is only one legitimate reason for a KJVO stance, and that is for preference only. There is little or no legitimacy to the other claims made by the KJVO camp.

    And yes, the 1611 KJV could have been better. No translation created by man has ever been perfect, and that includes the 1611 KJV.
     
    #119 Keith M, Nov 26, 2006
Page 6 of 6
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...